Archive for the ‘Game’ Category

Tiki Torch Vigils

Just like candlelight vigils, except with bigger candles!

This has been an edition of Your Daily Reframe.

Read Full Post »

The subject of this post isn’t new to returning visitors to the Chateau. The archives include a deep cut about “Sick Game“. Over the years, I’ve continued noticing that my seductive prowess and pickup success, for reasons that had eluded me until I dedicated an orphan neuron to solving the riddle, were inexplicably better during times I was tired, buzzed, stoned, sick, hungover, or any combination thereof.

After many autistic flowchart sessions and powerslut presentations, I finally have the common thread uniting these conditions and their association with my improved courtship quality.

It boils down to two characteristics of the male sexual persona that are subtly altered when in a cognitively and physically impaired state:

  1. Body language and vocal tone
  2. Attitude

When TBSS or H, a man’s body movements slow down. He becomes less skittish, and his body opens up, often just from sheer exhaustion and debilitation. He slumps in his chair with crotch area insouciantly displayed, stands aloofly, and has a hard time focusing on things (or a girl standing before him). Crucially, his speech slows down, and though he may slur some words this negative affect is ameliorated by the gravelly sound his voice assumes and by the lower pitch that often accompanies an exhausted mind-vocal cord axis.

What happens to his attitude is even more relevant to girls’ receptiveness: a flowering of ZFG. A tired, drunk, sick, or hungover man hasn’t the emotional nor mental resources to spare to indulge self-doubt, concern for the impression he’s leaving, or worry over the outcome of any social interaction. In a sense, physical and mental exhaustion is a short-cut to imbuing oneself with that devil-may-care recklessness that women adore in men.

So that’s it. Slow and low vocalization, relaxed body, and a “holy fuck I could not care less what this one girl thinks of me at this moment when I’m overtired from a week straight working the night shift”. Accidental Male Attractiveness, you could call it. Now the trick is to reconstitute the sexy traits that come naturally during these lower biofunctioning phase shifts at those times when you are sober and prone to anti-seductive and pussy-desiccating reflection and second-guessing.

Read Full Post »

It’s incredible to think that it wasn’t so long ago America was so based, and so full of heritage pride, that the US Navy could release a training film on how to succeed with brunettes (because blondes are apparently easy lays and don’t require much in the way of effort to seduce).

(For whatever reason, the video isn’t linking up in WordPress, so go here to watch.)

The advice given in the Pussy Service Announcement will sound familiar to Chateau Heartiste guests…because it’s basically The 16 Commandments of Poon commissioned for release by the US government, before the levers of power were handed over to (((social constructivists))), SJWs, tranny freaks, and the globohomo bathhouse alliance.

First of all, be late. That’ll show her you’re a busy important person, and you’re not TOO interested in her. Play hard to get…this will make a great first impression.

Game concept: Flip the seduction script. Be the chasee, not the chaser, of girls.

Laugh it off. Apologize? Aw come on, don’t be a square.

Never apologize. Contrition is as little tolerated by women as it is by the leftoid media fuggernaut.

Be masterful. Protective. Grasp her arm firmly and steer her…to the car.

Kino escalation.

Always lead your woman.

Chicks dig it.

Oh, and don’t forget to light your cig with the candle sitting in the middle of your restaurant table.

Make sure you’re seated so you can see what’s going on. Makes for a more interesting evening.

Dread game.

Good stuff. Would recommend, without hesitation.

The twist ending is that this is the dating behavior the US Navy does NOT recommend for finding, meeting, attracting, and marriage-closing mid-20th Century American women. Instead the Navy believes men should aspire to the opposite: chivalrous White Knightery, pedestalizing pussy at every opportunity, and generally being a boring, if polite, beta schlub.

I don’t know if this “ladies first”, pussy pedestalization, “be a gentleman” anti-Game advice worked in 1967 (I doubt it), but it’s interesting that the culture at the time was strongly committed to this view of the dating scene. That tells me either beta males had it very good then and could afford to “be a gentleman” without losing out to sexy cads, or that cads were ascendent and the wider culture was beginning to push gentlemanly courtship as a reaction to a growing threat to cohesive society from sexy ZFG alphas and the women who couldn’t get enough of them.

PS Anyone notice that the man playing the cad in the first part of the video who supposedly demonstrated bad dating protocol is, shall we say, a bit on the dago swarthy side? And that the man playing the “gentleman” is a Whiter shade of pale? Heh.

Read Full Post »

Current Year ¡SCIENCE! is continually affirming CH maxims about the sexes, but even old timey trustworthy science, from before the SJW and femcunt infestation warped the scientific method, clairvoyantly strokes the Heartiste ego.

From a 1987 research paper, a finding that should crush the spirits of sex equalists and Game denialists (h/t Mr. Roboto):

Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general Usability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were ballsy and fearless exposers of ugly truths. These mid-20th Century studies are a gold mine for realtalk unpolluted by political cowardice and libshit sophistry. 1987 was probably near the last year these brutally shivtastic studies made it past the Narrative enforcers.

Descriptions of traditional female role expectations either omit dominance as a relevant dimension or suggest that low dominance is an aspect of the feminine role. For instance, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) found that clinical professionals viewed the healthy woman as submissive and not competitive. The empirical literature on normative behavior for males and females thus suggests that striving for dominance and success (ascending a social hierarchy) is typically demanded of males and is frequently proscribed for females.

Submissive wife, happy life.

Although females do compete for positions in status hierarchies, there is no available evidence to suggest that their achieved dominance or rank is positively related to their attractiveness to males.

This is borne out by personal observation. Mean Girls is orthogonal to female attractiveness to men. Women compete intrasexually primarily as a means of securing social favors from other women when they need them (for example, after childbirth). This is in stark contrast to men, who compete in dominance hierarchies to unlock a higher PUSSY POUNDER achievement level.

I read through the study to see if the authors properly defined what they meant by “dominance”. Luckily, they have: the term as they use it means PSYCHOSOCIAL DOMINANCE, aka GAME, and all that entails, including alpha and beta male body language and conversational nuances. Quote:

Dominance gestures in the performance were derived from criteria published by Mehrabian (1969). In the low-dominance condition, a constant male (CM) is shown seated at a desk in an office. An actor enters the room and chooses a chair near the door approximately 6 ft (2 m) from the desk of the CM. The actor, clutching a sheath of papers, aits in symmetrical posture, leans slightly forward with head partially bowed, and alternately looks down at the floor and up at the CM, During an ensuing discussion, the actor engages in repetitive head nodding and lets the CM engage in longer communications.

In the high-dominance condition, the actor enters, chooses a chair closer to the CM and sits in a relaxed, asymetrical posture. The actor’s hands and legs are relaxed and his body is leaning slightly backward in the chair. During the discussion, the actor produced higher rates of gesturing and lower rates of head nodding than in the low-dominance condition. Identical films were made with actresses playing all roles. Within each sex, the same actor or actress played both dominant and nondominant roles.

Does psychosocial dominance REDUCE female attractiveness to men? It would appear it does, a little at least (and it certainly doesn’t help women with men):

Female target persons in both Experiments 1 and 2 were in a context where dominance was displayed only toward other females. Perhaps a somewhat different picture might have emerged had subjects rated females who were dominant over males, indicating that it is in competition with males where females violate the normative expectations that they be submissive and noncompetitive (Broverman et al., 1970; Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972), and it is only in this case that their attractiveness suffers. A third experiment was conducted to examine this possibility. […]

If the dominance manipulation had a differential effect on the female target’s attractiveness when she was in competition with men (as opposed to women), this would have shown up as a Sex of Target Person x Dominance x Sex of Opponent interaction. This interaction yielded F values of less than 1 for both variables. The higher order interaction, sex of target person by dominance by sex of opponent by sex of subject, likewise yielded an F of less than 1 for the sexual-attractiveness item and an f[l, 199)= 1.33 for the dating-desirability rating. [ed: see Table 3 at the link]

The fourth experiment in the research paper is the most interesting. It found that psychosocial dominance, but NOT aggressiveness or a domineering attitude (aka try-hard douchebaggery), was the key to increased male sexual attractiveness to women:

Manipulation of the level within the aggressive and domineering cells produced no differential effects on sexual attraction. These factors also did not differentially affect the sexual attractiveness of male and female targets (all F values for Sex x Aggression and Sex x Domineering simple interactions were less than 1).

A different pattern emerged for manipulations of dominance. The main effect of dominance on sexual attractiveness was significant, f{ 1,66) = 8.12, p< .01. This main effect was produced by differences in rated attractiveness of men in high- as opposed to low-dominance conditions. Consistent with the results of Experiments 1 through 3, there was a significant Sex x Dominance interaction, F(l, 66) = 9.79, p < .01, with men rated as more attractive in the high-dominance condition.

Ignoramuses and cunts arguing in bad faith love to assert that Game is about being a try-hard douchebag, but it’s nothing of the sort. Game is about amused mastery, subcommunicated through dominant body language and verbal confidence. Domineering men aren’t master seducers; they’re usually romantically insecure and their self-doubt impels them to try to ham-fistedly control women’s fluid flirtations and feral sexuality, instead of smoothly guide women to a heightened state of arousal.

This next finding should piss off another subset of Game denialists:

Results for the dimension of physical attractiveness were similar to the results for sexual attraction. Neither the aggression nor the domineering factor produced an effect on physical attraction. Level of dominance did, however, influence attributions of physical attraction, F( 1, 69) = 6.62, p< .01, and this main effect was again moderated by an interaction of sex and dominance level, F( 1,69) = 4.42, p< .01. Once again, a test of the simple main effects indicated an effect only for men, who were rated as more physically attractive in the high-dominance condition only, ^1,37)= 12.71,p<.01.

Resident Looks Piller wolfie wept.

So why aren’t all men dominant? Well, for one, status hierarchies only have so much room at the top. Two, there are trade-offs in the race for maximal reproductive fitness:

Manipulation of the level of dominance produced a constellation of personality attributions. In addition to its impact on variables related to sexual attraction, the level of dominance significantly influenced attributions concerning the target’s likability, stability, promiscuity, competence, and social class.

High dominance was found to lower the general likability of the target person, F(l, 64) = 38.7, p < .001. There was neither an effect of sex nor any interaction between dominance and sex on this variable. This result indicates that for men there is a potential trade-off between sexual attractiveness and likability, with high dominance increasing the former but reducing the latter. […]

High dominance led to perceptions of greater promiscuity in the target, /(I, 66) – 10.86, p < .002, with high dominance associated with increased promiscuity. A significant Sex X Level of Magnitude interaction, F{1,66) = 5,36,p < .02, indicated that men were perceived as more promiscuous in the high-dominance condition than were women. […]

To summarize, the following influence of dominance level was observed. High dominance increased the rated sexual attractiveness and physical attractiveness of male targets but had no discernable influence on the sexual or physical attractiveness of female targets. High dominance substantially decreased the likability of both sexes and was associated with increases in the rated stability, competence, promiscuity, and social class of both sexes.

Women are sexually attracted to psychosocially dominant men, even as these men are perceived to be less likable and more promiscuous. So no, femcunts and manginas, promiscuous men do not suffer a sexual market penalty. In fact, the perception of promiscuousness and unlikability may help them score additional notches.

It all goes to the old CH saying, “Don’t listen to what a woman says, watch what she does.” Which includes whom she fucks. Women will tell you they want a likable, chaste man, but their pussies are aching for a dominant, unlikable, promiscuous man.

Wynne-Edwards (1962) and Pfeiffer (1969) have suggested that among humans the ability to impress and win deference from others depends on the sum of many qualities, including strength, skill, determination to achieve superiority, and intelligence.

This sentence is a wet kiss planted right on the Heartiste lips, evoking as it does the seminal CH pinned posts “Dating Market Value Test for men and women” and “The 16 Commandments of Poon”.

The results of our fourth experiment suggest that some of the behaviors that may lead to a high rank do not themselves promote an individual’s attractiveness. Aggressive and domineering tendencies did not increase the sexual attractiveness of either males or females. The covariance analysis suggests that the highest levels of sexual attractiveness should occur when males express dominance without the use of such behaviors.

This research is a veritable PSA for the efficacy of Game (learned charisma).

Furthermore, dominance increases the sexual attractiveness of males but does not produce a general halo effect. Individuals simply described as dominant were assumed to be also aggressive and domineering; they were regarded as less likable and were not desired as spouses.

The first unearthing of the famed “alpha fux, beta bux” principle?

Executive Summary: If you want to bed more women, stop trying to make them like you. Instead, make them desire you.

Denying and obfuscating and suppressing these truths about the nature of the sexes inevitably leads to tragic cases like the women on the following magazine cover. Maybe someone should inform these aging beauties that men aren’t attracted to “sassy, sophisticated, solvent” women.

Where have all the good men gone? Back in their nubile 20s, where these sour grapes spinster cows left them. 54 and “looking for love”. jfc the delusion is unreal.

Psychological projection seems to be a feature of the female brain gone insane. What women desire — male dominance — is mistaken by women for what men desire in them. But men don’t love dominance, or sass, or careerism, or ambition in women. What men love is younger, hotter, tighter. Something which these has-beens lost as a bargaining chip a long time ago. And now they claim the chaps they can get just don’t measure up, which translated from the female hamsterese means the only men willing to fuck them are naggers and LSMV dregs with no standards and no other choice but internet porn. In fact, many dregs would choose the Fap Life before laying with one of these sassy harridans.

Sass is tolerable on a 21 year old vixen. It’s boner death on a 54 year old matron.

Likewise, chasteness and likability are tolerable on a dominant man. But they’re tingle killers on a submissive man.

Dominance is Game and Game is pussy.

And pussy is life everlasting. Amen.

Read Full Post »

Framing is a powerful Game skill, while Agree & Amplify is a powerful Game tactic. One may argue they’re nearly synonymous, but A&A is better understood as a specific practical application of the overarching concept of Framing.

(For CH newbs, “framing” is another way to say “controlling the narrative”. When you frame a conversation, you are funneling your listeners and readers into a particular channel of thought that is conducive to your communicative goals. “Agree&Amplify” is the rhetorical feint that subverts an antagonist’s conversational momentum and helps prevent you from entrapment in a defensive posture.)

I bring this up in relation to a recent post in which I asked you readers how CH should respond to interview requests from media whores. The overwhelming majority of readers voted for the option of continuing to ignore the Gaystream Media solicitors in perpetuity.

For the record, the Chateau was leaning toward the “Ignore on Rewind” policy prescription for dealing with inquisitive GSM whores before the commenters cemented the decision to certify the Ignore option.

But one reader wondered why CH doesn’t just “agree & amplify” solicitous media whores? A good question. A&A’ing media drones might sound like this:


GSM drone: Can we dox interview you?

CH: Only if you don’t use the term “White supremacist.”

GSM drone: But we have to stay true to our readers’ expectations!

CH: No doubt, but on condition that if you use the word “racist” or the term “White supremacist”, you must substitute with “super duper megaracist” and “SO FUCKING White supremacist that we at CH believe the 70% of the universe that is dark matter should be turned into White matter.”


That’s an amusing A&A, and many on the fence would chuckle knowingly at the sexy impertinence on display, and maybe even a few converts to the realtalk cause would accrue, but the predominant consequence would be shitlib readers pressing their hands tighter against their ears and shrieking “racist!” even louder.

Agree&Amplify is an awesome tool of persuasion in smaller social settings and one-on-one with brightening girls, but its limitations are more evident when scaled up to the national gaystream media hatrix. To answer the reader’s question, the power of the mass media agitprop machine to frame a dialogue — and to isolate, freeze, and polarize a dissident interviewee — is too great a force to successfully thwart with a single Game tactic executed in a single instance.

Framing trumps Agree&Amplify. This is especially obvious when the framing is done by a multifaceted, multi-noded, supranational conglomerate with thousands upon thousands of like-minded Narrative enforcers focusing their immense repository of rhetorical tricks on designated targets for social exile.

When you are gaming a girl, she’s not annotating the proceedings, (as is the wont of NPR apparatchiks whenever they do a story on Trump). Your mischievous A&A isn’t being preemptively framed and predigested for her, so there’s no risk she’ll automatically default to tuning out what you say. There’s just the spontaneity of the seduction, her words, your words, and the feelings that come from that.

But the media creates feelings before you have a chance to seduce their audience to sympathize with you. The power of the media to annotate and editorialize days and weeks before introducing you to the public is the power to instantly frame any interaction to favor the media’s worldview and goals. It’s not hard to guess how a CH-GSM entente would play out:

GSM shitlib: Be our interview Valentine?

CH: Sure.

*CH games the media into a leaving a love puddle on the seat.*

*GSM plays the coquette, promises fairness, releases their interview one week later*

Perhaps deriving from a deep-seated insecurity in a world rapidly leaving his kind behind, our interview subject CH attempted to deflate the enormity of the callous and unprecedentedly vile racist, misogynist, racist, and sexist ideas espoused at the Heartiste blog with cutesy requests to our reporter to refer to him as “God’s Chosen Shitlord”. We warn our readers to be aware of this sophistry and understand the psychological motivations behind it.

Bezos Post-Op: So, “God’s Chosen Shitlord”, how would you answer the increasing chorus of critics who say you are spreading a message of hate?….

Taking down the lying scum media is a job CH can’t do alone. A million CHs can though and, as Trump intuitively understands, America won’t be great again until the Gaystream Media is first destroyed and rebuilt in the image of Heritage America.

First time commenter Matt writes,

I have read your blog for over four years. I have never posted before. I have read almost every article, and probably fifty percent of comments.

Over last few months I have seen a huge spike in number of new commentors. I just finished you article about media calling you. Please do not reply to MSM, they will fuck you. I know its difficult, we are all vain to some degree.

It’s my only preen-ness.

You are a fantastic wordsmith, and for me personally, you have completely changed my view of women. I am 45 and have been married with children for a long time(over 15 years), for me game has saved my soul. Not that I see other women, but that I keep my wife in line (without being a ngger and beating her).

Do not talk to media. Do not let them figure out who you are. Many of these new commentors are suspect. (many are probably newbs too). I imagine you are gaining a lot of traction, several friends and family now read you as well. I don’t think you understand how important this place is, or you are.

Dont let them ruin it. We don’t need them anymore.

You are the media now.

Don’t talk to the media dude, don’t let them wreck this place.

The decision is made. Fuck the media. They’re a rotten corpse with delusions of breath left in their dusty lungs. They want to know about this outpost of bracing truth and beauty? They can come here and find out for themselves.

Read Full Post »

Flaky Flakeberg Text Game

The Chateau’s Flaky McFlakester text Game is acquiring a lot of devotees. A reader adds to the cacophonous encomium,


When am I going to give up the struggle in my heart and just accept that you are the source of all knowledge?

dein kampf.

I’ve been commenting on your posts for awhile – recently about my adventures on Tinder as a married man. I had a girl lined up this weekend, and she was ready to go… until her mom called from across the country and it fell apart. We texted a bit the next day, and it trailed off.

Sitting here today, and I go through the CH archives and come across your advice for reversing a flake. I figured, what do I have to lose? I edited a bit cause I know she’s Jewish, and texted her “what’s up, flaky flakeberg?” Got three texts back in under two minutes.

Honestly, my schedule is complicated since I have a wife to work around, so I doubt she and I will be able to connect again. But hey, I got a response, and a few more dirty pictures to add to my collection. And you can’t put a price on that, can you?

Thanks again,


Folks, I am but a humble messenger of the True Nature of Woman. Sup from my banquet of knowledge at your own risk, and prepare to receive the shwings and furrows of indignant tradcons.

Read Full Post »

The Winner Effect is the cognitive key to unleashing the Latent Alpha in every beta male. The term was entered into the Chateau lexicon via this post about the existence of an “alpha male switch” in mice:

Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.

“We observed that not all the mice returned to their original rank,” said Hu. “Some mice [did], but some of them had this newly dominant position.”

The scientists described this as the “winner effect”, hinting that there may be a grain of truth in the self-help mantra “fake it ‘til you make it”

Imprinting is a synonym for social priming. Both terms describe how extrinsic alterations in one’s behavior can leave a lasting effect on one’s intrinsic mentality. In laybro language: Fake it till you create it. If you assume the trappings of alpha male posture and body language and attitude and verbal terseness, you will neurally metamorphose into the alpha you mimic. Game is the elevation of a man from beta status to alpha status, and it provides a long-term boost almost the equal of the temporary boost it gives to a man’s SMV.

This is the Winner Effect benefit of Game: the more alpha maleness you project, the more positive attention you’ll get from women, and the more this feeling of winning will embed itself as a semi-permanent feature of your limbic landscape.

Experiences have consequences. If your experiences are a B(eta) side compendium of rejection, you’ll grow bitter about women and skeptical of your ability to attract women. But once you’ve tasted the power surge of testosterone-y glory that accompanies social mastery and the glow of being the locus of female desire, your brain will be reconfigured to a higher alpha plane of functioning, supercharging a positive feedback loop of continued alphatude, winning, and womanizing.

Whether you are besting men or bedding women, the Winner Effect lingers. Don’t misunderstand; The Winner Effect requires steady inputs to achieve an acceptable consistency in output. Persuading one plain jane to sleep with you will produce a Little Winner Effect that may last a whole week, or until a real hottie brushes aside your advance. To really exploit the Winner Effect, you need to build up a reserve of psychological capital, and the surest route to that state of mind is through the hearts of multiple women of increasing beauty.

A lesson for the excitable betas: One girlfriend or wife does not a Rico Suave make. One kiss close does not a loverboy make. One same night lay does not a ladykiller make.

One girlfriend is certainly better than no girlfriend, but to scale the heights of the sexual market and banish the depressive beta male within always threatening to end the party, you’ll need a C.V. of snapper hauling history. Success breeds success, winning begets winning.

Think of it this way: Each new bang secures a slightly elevated SMV rank for a man. If you’re incel, one bang with a mousy nerd girl will fill your jewels with juice and your shuffle with swagger, but it won’t turn you into a Casanova. Bang another, better lo0king girl within a reasonable time frame of the first girl, and your balls will grow two more sizes. Now you’re less beta than you were after banging the first girl, and the Winner Effect lingers a little longer. Bang yet another girl, even hotter, and your Inner Beta is shrunk again while your Nascent Alpha has hit its pubertal stride.

After every bang and new girl, you will “reset” to a less beta/submissive and a more alpha/dominant psychological position once the penumbra of Winner Effect has worn off your post-coitally frazzled ganglia. And the time it takes for the Winner Effect to wear off will increase with each cuntquest. Nirvaja is reached when the Winner Effect is a permanent fixture of your everyday emotional state, and picking up women becomes as eventful as grocery shopping. You expect food to be on the shelves, and enough money in your pocket to purchase what you need.

From a personal standpoint, I can vouch for the Winner Effect. Bedding women lends an air of inevitably and invincibility to a man’s desirability, which translates as an unstoppable confidence in the field. But these romantic adventures tend to come in bunches. It’s the nature of the mating arena. One six month stretch I had tore my way through fifteen women; then the well tapped out and the two months that followed were high and dry. The Inner Beta creeped up on me, and I could’ve succumbed to a longer bout of tingle-killing self-doubt if I hadn’t already had a vajfap sheet a mile long upon which to calm my emotional chaos.

The danger that lurks for all men who rely heavily on interpersonal qualities (rather than, say, a billion dollars) for projecting alluring masculinity is that there is an equal and opposite reaction for every action. The Winner Effect can easily yield to the Loser Rut if you are a weak-willed sort. If you are accustomed to a regular stream of prime pussy gracing your gonads and suddenly suffer a dip in fortunes, then a natural and brief interregnum can seem like a lasting catastrophe. A negative reinforcement can set up that quickly exacerbates what would normally be a tiny disturbance in your force into a cataclysmic referendum on your seductive prowess.

Put your faith in the Winner Effect, but temper your zeal with a commonsensical appreciation of the likely ruts you’ll endure along your journeys in the world of women. If you have a level head and aren’t given to hysterical self-appraisals every time you experience a setback, then Game will serve you as a lifelong friend. For this reason, the womanizers I have admired the most were those men whose quality of conquest was nearly matched by their consistency of conquest. That’s how I knew they had achieved the equivalent of Chateau lordship. Every man experiences ruts, but only a few men gaze up from within their ruts and see an opportunity to climb to a new zenith.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: